People v. Ford CA1/4

Filed 3/19/26 P. v. Ford CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172192

v. (San Francisco City & County ALEXANDER FORD, Super. Ct. No. CRI-21008589) Defendant and Appellant.

Alexander Ford was convicted of one count of making a criminal threat and sentenced to the middle term of two years, with 1,136 days credit for time served. On appeal, he contends his sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court was aware of its obligation to apply the lower term presumption under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A) because what he describes as his “mental health issues” were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. The case law distinguishes, however, between psychological trauma, which triggers the presumption, and mental illness, which does not unless there is psychological trauma associated with it. Because Ford has failed to address the distinction and identify evidence in

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

the record that he experienced psychological trauma based on his mental illness, we find no error. BACKGROUND Ford was charged with making criminal threats (§ 422) and one count of obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information alleged several circumstances in aggravation, including that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness and that Ford engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1), (b)(1)).2 At trial, evidence was presented that while the victim was cleaning the sidewalk outside of the restaurant where he worked, Ford approached him from behind and hit him with “something cold on [his] neck.” When the victim turned around, Ford began yelling, calling the victim names, and saying that he would kill him. Ford pointed a gun, which was later determined to be a replica, at the victim’s chest and told him that he hated him and wanted to kill him. The interaction ended once police arrived on the scene and arrested Ford. Other witnesses described Ford as speaking in “garbl[ed]” language and yelling incoherently as he walked down the street prior to the incident. The jury found Ford guilty of making criminal threats and found the sentencing circumstances true. The second count was dismissed at trial. Neither party filed a sentencing memorandum and only an abbreviated probation report was filed because Ford had already served the maximum